13 California opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.green2 sentences2009“A court has inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation and conserve judicial resources.” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 284 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 ]; accord, Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595 .) Use of a motion in limine to test whether a complaint states a cause of action “falls within these powers . . . .” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles, at p. 285.) “In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues 2009“A court has inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation and conserve judicial resources.” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 284 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 ]; accord, Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595 .) Use of a motion in limine to test whether a complaint states a cause of action “falls within these powers . . . .” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles, at p. 285.) “In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues | 2 | 2 |
Lucas v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2009“A court has inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation and conserve judicial resources.” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 284 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 ]; accord, Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595 .) Use of a motion in limine to test whether a complaint states a cause of action “falls within these powers . . . .” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles, at p. 285.) “In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues 2009“A court has inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation and conserve judicial resources.” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 284 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 ]; accord, Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595 .) Use of a motion in limine to test whether a complaint states a cause of action “falls within these powers . . . .” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles, at p. 285.) “In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues | 2 | 2 |
People v. Casaresgreen1 sentence2022(See People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1179 [the defendant failed to preserve relevance issue for appellate review where he failed to explain relevance of evidence or otherwise establish its admissibility at trial]; see also People v. Casares (2016) 62 Cal.4th 808, 830 [failure at trial to advance other basis of relevance beyond credibility forfeited argument on appeal], disapproved on another ground by People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 214 .) At the motion in limine hearing, the trial court left open the possibility that proceedings at trial might render seatbelt evidence relevant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramosgreen1 sentence2022(See People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1179 [the defendant failed to preserve relevance issue for appellate review where he failed to explain relevance of evidence or otherwise establish its admissibility at trial]; see also People v. Casares (2016) 62 Cal.4th 808, 830 [failure at trial to advance other basis of relevance beyond credibility forfeited argument on appeal], disapproved on another ground by People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 214 .) At the motion in limine hearing, the trial court left open the possibility that proceedings at trial might render seatbelt evidence relevant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Daltongreen1 sentence2022(See People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1179 [the defendant failed to preserve relevance issue for appellate review where he failed to explain relevance of evidence or otherwise establish its admissibility at trial]; see also People v. Casares (2016) 62 Cal.4th 808, 830 [failure at trial to advance other basis of relevance beyond credibility forfeited argument on appeal], disapproved on another ground by People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 214 .) At the motion in limine hearing, the trial court left open the possibility that proceedings at trial might render seatbelt evidence relevant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carpentergreen1 sentence2020(People v. Carpenter, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1052 [no 17 error in admitting evidence that defendant possessed gun that might have been murder weapon].) The fact that after the motion in limine hearing Officer Cadaret testified at trial that the victim (a year after the assault in which he “glimpsed” the knife) told him that one of the knives found on the defendant “was similar in blade length and the fact that it had holes . . . but he did not believe it was the knife [used in the attack]” goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. | 1 | 1 |
Coshow v. City of Escondidogreen2 sentences2017Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939 , 951, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 ; see Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277 , 284-285, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 .) However, in limine motions are designed to prevent admission of evidence where it would be impossible to " ' "unring the bell" ' " if the evidence is presented to the jury, not to replace statutorily prescribed dispositive motions. ( Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582 , 1593, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 .) Nonetheless, trial courts have used motions in limine to dis 2017Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939 , 951, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 ; see Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277 , 284-285, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 .) However, in limine motions are designed to prevent admission of evidence where it would be impossible to " ' "unring the bell" ' " if the evidence is presented to the jury, not to replace statutorily prescribed dispositive motions. ( Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582 , 1593, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 .) Nonetheless, trial courts have used motions in limine to dis | 1 | 1 |
Kerner v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2014(Kerner v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 84, 116, 119, 122, 129 .) We therefore ordered the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the trial court to (1) vacate the orders compelling the production of documents and make explicit findings to determine whether Kerner waived her attorney-client privilege; (2) vacate the orders granting the motion to compel the production of documents and motion for net worth discovery, and reconsider those two motions; and (3) vacate the order granting the motion in limine and enter a new order denying the motion in limine. | 1 | 1 |
Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co.green2 sentences2013(Kawasho Internat, U.S.A., Inc. v. Lakewood Pipe Service, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d 785, 791 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 640 ] (Kawasho); Southern Christian *284 Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 207, 220 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 216 ].) The court’s comments after trial remove any doubt that it should not have ruled the interest provision was an agreed-upon term as a matter of law at the motion in limine hearing. 2013(Kawasho Internat, U.S.A., Inc. v. Lakewood Pipe Service, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d 785, 791 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 640 ] (Kawasho); Southern Christian *284 Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 207, 220 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 216 ].) The court’s comments after trial remove any doubt that it should not have ruled the interest provision was an agreed-upon term as a matter of law at the motion in limine hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Kawasho International, U.S.A., Inc. v. Lakewood Pipe Service, Inc.green2 sentences2013(Kawasho Internat, U.S.A., Inc. v. Lakewood Pipe Service, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d 785, 791 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 640 ] (Kawasho); Southern Christian *284 Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 207, 220 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 216 ].) The court’s comments after trial remove any doubt that it should not have ruled the interest provision was an agreed-upon term as a matter of law at the motion in limine hearing. 2013(Kawasho Internat, U.S.A., Inc. v. Lakewood Pipe Service, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d 785, 791 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 640 ] (Kawasho); Southern Christian *284 Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 207, 220 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 216 ].) The court’s comments after trial remove any doubt that it should not have ruled the interest provision was an agreed-upon term as a matter of law at the motion in limine hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp.green2 sentences2009“A court has inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation and conserve judicial resources.” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 284 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 ]; accord, Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595 .) Use of a motion in limine to test whether a complaint states a cause of action “falls within these powers . . . .” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles, at p. 285.) “In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues 2009“A court has inherent equity, supervisory and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation and conserve judicial resources.” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 284 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 ]; accord, Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595 .) Use of a motion in limine to test whether a complaint states a cause of action “falls within these powers . . . .” (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles, at p. 285.) “In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues | 1 | 1 |
Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc.green1 sentence2009(Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 122 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 221 ] [demurrer].) In such cases, “all inferences and conflicts in the evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party.” (Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595 .) But “we cannot reverse the judgment of dismissal based on . . . alleged [procedural] error . . . unless we are convinced that that ruling resulted in a miscarriage of justice . . . .” (People v. Edward D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Baker
green
2 sentences2022The court, however, declined to hold a section 402 hearing and admitted the evidence without the parsing that was required to properly apply section 352.26 (See Baker, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 1098 .) 26 As noted above, at the motion in limine hearing, defense counsel stated: “What I don’t understand is when you talk about common scheme or plan, to me that’s somebody is committing a gang robbery, where they’re intentionally planning on how to do something. 2021The court, however, declined to hold a section 402 hearing and admitted the evidence without the parsing that was required to properly apply section 352.26 (See Baker, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 1098 .) 26 As noted above, at the motion in limine hearing, defense counsel stated: “What I don’t understand is when you talk about common scheme or plan, to me that’s somebody is committing a gang robbery, where they’re intentionally planning on how to do something. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Falsetta
green
1 sentence2025The probative value of ‘other crimes’ evidence is also “increased by . . . the close proximity in time of the offenses, and the independent sources of evidence (the victims) in each offense.” (Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 917 .) Both circumstances are present here. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc.
green
1 sentence2023(Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 48 .) We review “implied factual findings under the substantial evidence standard.” (Id. at pp. 59–60.) Domingo contends we should apply de novo review because the trial court stated there were “unresolved issues of law” (citing a comment at the motion in limine hearing), and “[m]ost of the facts . . . were undisputed.” We disagree. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Archer
green
2 sentences2020In Archer, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 1380 , the defendant objected to the relevance of nine knives recovered from his yard, bedroom, workshop, and storage locker over a year after the victim’s murder. 2020In Archer, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th 1380 , the defendant objected to the relevance of nine knives recovered from his yard, bedroom, workshop, and storage locker over a year after the victim’s murder. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939 , 951, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 ; see Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277 , 284-285, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 .) However, in limine motions are designed to prevent admission of evidence where it would be impossible to " ' "unring the bell" ' " if the evidence is presented to the jury, not to replace statutorily prescribed dispositive motions. ( Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582 , 1593, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 .) Nonetheless, trial courts have used motions in limine to dis 2017Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939 , 951, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 ; see Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277 , 284-285, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 655 .) However, in limine motions are designed to prevent admission of evidence where it would be impossible to " ' "unring the bell" ' " if the evidence is presented to the jury, not to replace statutorily prescribed dispositive motions. ( Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582 , 1593, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 .) Nonetheless, trial courts have used motions in limine to dis | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re IW
green
2 sentences2014Thus any *1002 evidence that [she] engaged in any commercial sexual act, present or past, as a result of being a victim of human trafficking should have been inadmissible to prove her criminal liability at the jurisdictional hearing.” Since the minor’s implicit contention is that the evidence supports only a finding that she was a human trafficking victim, “the question for a reviewing court becomes whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law. [Citations.] Specifically, the question becomes whether the appellant’s evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and uni 2014Thus any *1002 evidence that [she] engaged in any commercial sexual act, present or past, as a result of being a victim of human trafficking should have been inadmissible to prove her criminal liability at the jurisdictional hearing.” Since the minor’s implicit contention is that the evidence supports only a finding that she was a human trafficking victim, “the question for a reviewing court becomes whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law. [Citations.] Specifically, the question becomes whether the appellant’s evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and uni | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Apalatequi
green
1 sentence2014The trial court excluded evidence of options that vested prior to Peter’s death and that had been exercised by Alison because these options would not have affected any damages suffered by Alison resulting from Peter’s death. 7 Alison’s reliance on People v. Apalatequi (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 970 is unavailing. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Linear Technology v. Applied Materials
green
1 sentence2009(Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 122 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 221 ] [demurrer].) In such cases, “all inferences and conflicts in the evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party.” (Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595 .) But “we cannot reverse the judgment of dismissal based on . . . alleged [procedural] error . . . unless we are convinced that that ruling resulted in a miscarriage of justice . . . .” (People v. Edward D. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Frye v. United States
red
2 sentences1994Defendant made a motion in limine to bar evidence of the HGN test result based on Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24 , and Frye, supra, 293 F. 1013 . 1994Defendant made a motion in limine to bar evidence of the HGN test result based on Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24 , and Frye, supra, 293 F. 1013 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Kelly
red
2 sentences1994Defendant made a motion in limine to bar evidence of the HGN test result based on Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24 , and Frye, supra, 293 F. 1013 . 1994Defendant made a motion in limine to bar evidence of the HGN test result based on Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24 , and Frye, supra, 293 F. 1013 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.